Template talk:Infobox school/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Assistant principals

I see that "assistant principals" was removed from this infobox but articles like Teaneck High School are still listing them? Why is the allowed? I thought assistant principals were decided to be not notable? 76.127.20.109 (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Because there is a certain editor of New Jersey schools who has taken it upon zemself to add it as a custom parameter to these articles and no one has acted to remove them yet. EyeTripleE (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
we could add some tracking to find these, if it would be useful. Frietjes (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
This could be helpful. If there is a standard format a bot might be in order to remove them all. EyeTripleE (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

New Field: FTEs?

What do people think about adding a field for the number of full time equivalent faculty? The National Center for Education Statistics publishes this value, but it is frequently not an integer. As a result, many are listed as having a fractional number of faculty with no explanation. Billhpike (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe the "teaching_staff" field is intended for that number. I also think having a field with a displayed title of "FTE" would be confusing to the average reader. What I'd propose is to set the displayed title for the "teaching_staff" field to Teaching staff (FTE). If that works for you, Billhpike, and no one else objects, please go ahead and make an edit request for it. I'm not a template editor. John from Idegon (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes we know the precise number of teaching staff so having FTE in the label isn't always appropriate. I think the current practice of including "(FTE)" is sufficient. EyeTripleE (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
EyeTripleE, I disagree. We at least for U.S. schools, seldom have an independent source for the actual number of teachers, and I've seen several instances of huge variations between what the schools claim for number of teachers and the reported FTE. Of course, this is due to the school making somewhat spurious claims by counting the bodies that they employ, rather than the number of actual teachers there teaching all day. This is done I believe with the conscience intent of making the school sound better. Besides, we have another field in the template (faculty) where the number you speak of can be entered. John from Idegon (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Add a field? Nah. We already have enough fields. What we need is a better concordance, so editors know whether to use the teaching staff or faculty fields. The NCES does not publish a faculty number, but rather Classroom Teachers, whose role is defined thusly: Teacher: A professional school staff member who instructs students in prekindergarten, kindergarten, grades 1 through 12, or ungraded classes and maintains daily student attendance records. Rhadow (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Rhadow, EyeTripleE, Billhpike, Would it be possible to come to a consensus on this: modify the existing field "teaching_staff" so its displayed title is a wikilink to Full time equivalent, piped to display a title of "Teaching staff (FTE)", and editing hidden messages into the documentation stating "<!-- teaching staff per NCES -->" for the teaching staff field and "<!-- faculty per other sources -->" for the "faculty" field? Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I support John’s proposal. Since this template is used for schools outside the US,the hidden comment should make it clear that not only NCES data can be used. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Sure, if you tell me what teaching staff per NCES is. Is that the total of Instructional Aide, Instructional Coordinators and Supervisors, Librarian/Media Specialist, Librarians/Media Support Staff, Other Support Staff, School Administrative Support Staff, School Administrator, Student Support Services Staff, and Classroom Teachers?
We would do better with "<!-- Classroom Teachers per NCES -->". Then by NCES definition, the ratio will work out, too. Rhadow (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Rhadow, if you look at any NCES school summary, you will see a field labeled "Teaching staff". You will not see a field labeled "classroom teachers". John from Idegon (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello John from Idegon -- Here's the view I normally look at [1]. It seems to be the wrong one. What should I be looking at? Rhadow (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The student demographics usually are cited to summaries generated from NCES school search. John from Idegon (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Hello John from Idegon -- Excellent! I looked up Elder High School using globalallocator [2]. What I saw was Total Teachers (FTE). That number, 56.9, jives with the displayed Student/Teacher Ratio, 15.3. NCES is pedantic in its definition of professional and staff. I suggest we be just as precise. Rhadow (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Enrollment_as_of

This parameter would be improved in appearance if the associated reference appeared outside the parentheses. Rhadow (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

There are two non technical solutions for that. Since it is the same piece of data by definition as the parameter immediately above, put the ref with the enrollment and call it good. Or use the footnotes parameter for the reference. John from Idegon (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Grade enrollment figures and remove url and homepage in favour of website

Is it worth providing enrollment figures for each grade? Currently there are these parameters: grade_preK, gradeK, grade1 to grade13, other, other_grade_label, other_grade_label_1, other_grade_label_2, other_grade_enrollment, other_grade_enrollment_1, other_grade_enrollment_2. Are we providing too much information for the infobox? Would it not suffice to provide the overall enrollment in the three parameters available: enrollment, students, pupils. Can even add enrollment figures for each grade in this parameter only if people wanted to or even make use of a collapsible list.

Is there any point having three different parameters that do the same thing? I propose removing the url and homepage parameters in favour of website, both of these parameters also display as website in the infobox anyway. A bot could be used to change any articles using url and homepage to website. The documentation displays only the website parameter so new articles will be using this parameter too. What do you think? It will also reduce the number of parameters this template has. Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

UK Schools

There are still quite a few fields missing relating to UK Schools! This merger was suppose to be done months ago! Mark999 (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Mailing address?

How should a mailing address (e.g. P.O. Box ...) be entered?User-duck (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
That tidbit should probably be added to the documentation page. Is it because it is like an e-mail address or telephone # ?User-duck (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it shouldn't be included but the issue has been raised several times in the past - search the archives - and the majority of editors have agreed that the information is appropriate.
User-duck: There is an "address" parameter in this template. Try taking a look at the example at the bottom of the template page (although that example has this parameter labeled "streetaddress" which I think is just an alias for this same parameter). ElKevbo (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
User-duck, ElKevbo is correct:"address" and "streetaddress" are just different names for the same parameter. I'm indifferent on including a PO box, but if you did, you could put it in the address parameter, separated from the street address by either a comma or a <br>, depending on the length. However, if the mailing address is a street address different from the physical location, I'd omit it for clarity. John from Idegon (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I am talking about a mailing address (P. O. Box 9123) that is different from a street address (123 Lilac Avenue). This is quite common in the U.S. Apparently |address= was changed to |streetaddress= to lessen the confusion. If mailing addresses are appropriate, |mailingaddress= should be added to the template.User-duck (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that mailing address is appropriate; that is clearly directory information. ElKevbo (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
User-duck, it would be interesting to know how you determined "this is quite common in the US". I've got about 5000 US schools on my watchlist, and there are >5 that have PO box addresses. Since the vast majority of schools are either one building or a campus of a few buildings sharing the same address, we reached a consensus (not easily either, as ElKevbo alluded to in his initial response) that a street address was reasonable to include as a way of description of the school. A mailing address would just be useful to contact the school, and per NOTDIR, and like phone numbers and email addresses, we should not include that. I don't personally feel strongly enough about it that I would remove it, but I certainly wouldn't revert someone who did. I completely oppose any modifications to this template for a mailing address parameter. John from Idegon (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
First, thanks all for the input. I have a much better understanding of the pro's and con's. I thought a mailing address was appropriate since I saw one in an article I was checking. I did not think it was appropriate to conscript |streetaddress= to add it. I only proposed modifying the template if mailing addresses were appropriate in infoboxes. But I agree that they are not appropriate per WP:NOTDIR.User-duck (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
P.S. It is nice to know that only 0.1% US school articles have inappropriately included mailing addresses.User-duck (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
You misunderstood. There are only approximately 0.1% of the schools that have PO box mailing addresses. Since the USPO is still at least partially manual, all they need is the school's name and the right zip and the mail will get there. Even if a school actually uses a PO box, it isn't really necessary for them to publish it. John from Idegon (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
It would be extremely rare for a school in the UK to use a P.O.Box. In fact the use of PO boxes in the UK is not all that common nowadays. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

Change <span class="region"> for parameter postalcode in data3 to <span class="postal-code">. Zulfadli51 (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit Issue Related To Deprecated Parameter

@Steven, In this template, I recently made edit related to postal code, postcode and zipcode. By making a minor edit, just preview the template documentation page. When you preview the page, when you scroll the page and reach the Full syntax section in the preview page, you will be able to see the warning message: "Infobox school warning: Using more than one of the following parameters: postcode , postalcode , zipcode Using more than one of the following parameters: educational_authority , educational authority , authority". The warning occurs due to the reason that only one of the values among postcode, zipcode or postalcode can be used. It is due to that reason, i changed zipcode and postalcode into comments for the attribute postcode so that those looking at the template may be able to understand that only one of them can be used. The same happened in the case of authority also which I haven't edited yet. So I suggest you to make the necessary edits to the template documentation so that the category "Pages using infobox school with deprecated parameters" can be removed from the template page. Adithyak1997 (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Adithyak1997, this is exempt as it's the template documentation. The point of this is so that users visiting the template page can make a blank copy of the infobox which includes all of the parameters available, and then remove what isn't required. It's also for the infobox you see on the right (parameter names example) which shows the user what the infobox with the parameters look like and its location. When you made your edit, you made zipcode hidden in the infobox example. Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 September 2018

The template has several parameters for number of students (|enrollment=, |enrolment=, |students=, |sixth_form_students=, and |pupils=. The corresponding parameter |enrollment_as_of= is supposed to display a year in parenthesis to qualify the count. This field seems to be ignored except with |enrollment/enrolment=. MB 14:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

That is correct. That's what happens. The reason there are multiple places where essentially the same data could be added is to have a culturally specific title for the data display. Are you requesting the addition of "_as_of" parameters for the the ones that lack them? John from Idegon (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm requesting that it work as documented (in the big parameter table). If |enrollment_as_of= is used, the year should be displayed with whichever of the culturally specific titles was used. No need to add three more "_as_of"s - although that would work too. MB 23:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 Done, MB and John from Idegon. "Students" and "pupils" are the same as "enrollment", so I'll make that change, along with the synonyms students_as_of and pupils_as_of. I'll also make the displayed label change along with which parameter set is being used. I haven't touched sixth_form_students, as I would think editors wouldn't use that parameter by itself. Let me know if this sounds good. Marking as done for now to get this out of CAT:ETP. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Update: this template is a mess, especially regarding these parameters. I've been cleaning some up with the Bamyers99 tool, and the sandbox version looks fine for now. I'm going to give it a bit of time, but will copy the sandbox version into the main version when I finish verifying that the change works. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Alright, copied. Let me know if anything's screwed up. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Merging Template:Infobox UK school

Useful links:
{{Infobox UK school}} (from-template, source)
{{Infobox school}} (into-template, target)

I'm working on merging that template into this one, in line with the TfD held in January 2018. I may need to add a field or two to this template. In particular "DfE URN" would be needed here. Also that infobox has a field for "trust or foundation" and I couldn't find an equivalent field here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added urn and also capacity. Will document them shortly ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Martin, super sorry for the delayed response, have been so busy. I did last edit on the 27th, but didn't check my watchlist, damn. First of all, thank you so much for merging the two infoboxes, you did a good job! Thank you! :) There is a strange issue with two of the parameters, both which work and display perfectly fine in the infobox - when you use Infobox school rather than Infobox UK school and you fill in the UK parameters that were added, when you view it in preview mode, it shows two of the same warning messages at the top: "Warning: Page using Template:Infobox school with unknown parameter "trust" and "local_authority" (this message is shown only in preview)." You can see an example for this school (you'll need to add trust and fill something random in so you can check in preview). Also wondering if you could move capacity so that it appears below enrollment? Not sure if you have done this, but any chance you could make the following parameters unsupported so that they populate the unsupported parameter category: deputy_head_label, deputy_head, r_deputy_head_label and r_deputy_head as we don't report on deputies/assistants. Can we move Template:Infobox UK school/ofsted to Template:Infobox school/Ofsted (0 transclussions and few pages linking to it). I was thinking after the documentation has been updated, can Infobox UK school be redirected to Infobox school which is what was done with other templates that were merged into Infobox school? Please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. The following has been coded in the sandbox:
  1. trust and local_authority now added to parameter checking  Done
  2. Deputies no longer passed to this template so they will not display.  Done
  3. Capcity moved to below enrolment  Done
I think I will just tag Template:Infobox UK school/ofsted with {{db-t3}} because it essentially duplicates {{ofsted}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The merge process

I would structure the merge process like this:

  • Goal: ultimately, {{Infobox UK school}} is an unrestricted redirect to {{Infobox school}}. Today's non-same = conflicting parameters (different by being absent, spelled differently, different in meaning, ...) are resolved, as the target template solely defines the parameters. So a conflicting parameter must be added, removed, adjusted in the target template, or the articles must be edited (preferably not).
  • Tools: apart from reading the code of course, I'd support using tracking tools like Module:Check for unknown parameters (handles deprecated parameters too?), WP:TemplateData especially since TD produces the TemplateData monthly error report (per 1st of month situation). These tools need attention, because it is only helpful if the category is cleaned for its purpose (today, a lot of old misspellings are present and so confusing a simple article check run for say |foo=).
  • Issues: asymmetrical parameters should be either added to the target, or removed from source and articles using it. However, one can do those removals after an update, using the tracking categories.
  • Testing: the /testpage should have useful tst situations (which templates to compare?). Also, any live article can be tested by editing and previewing an {{Infobox school/sandbox}} change (no save of course). In testing, Preview is our friend.
    Better page setup: use {{Test case}} and set parameters |_template1=, |_template2= (override default). Advantage: uses same set of input parameters for both.
  • Not todo: Let's not get distracted into changing stuff that does not belong to the merge itself. No new deprecation of parameters, no unforced change of parameters in the target template, etc. - DePiep (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I add: I propose to clean up the target template {{Infobox school}} first, before applying any UK-school edits. That is:
    - Empty Category:Pages using infobox school with deprecated parameters (0) manually then remove deprecated parameters from template code (make them Unkown parameters). The unwanted capitals like |Principal= are gone from articles, but the more complicated ones (what's that with |approx=?) are still there. Look a like this is also a "multiple synonym parameters used" category, with uncelear documentation.
    - Empty Category:Pages using infobox school with unsupported parameters (343). Needs some research?
    When we are at it: change parameter tracking code to use {{Main other}}, i.e. only categorise articles.
Shall I make a sandbox2 demo code? Point is, we'd better change that before the new edits take place, to keep clean overview. - DePiep (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @JJMC89 and MSGJ: re, for example [3]: could you inform me on the plan being performed? As it looks, {{Infobox UK school}} is turned into a pass-through template not a Redirect. Why would that be good? -DePiep (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    The closer of the TfD favours redirecting (I have no strong opinion). As you correctly identified, this is not possible at the moment. So I am just doing what I can to tidy things up and make sure that no information is lost. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    I don't understand the process I see in the code wrt this (for example, |website= handling), so I'll wait and see (and do some celanup). -DePiep (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Example "motto"

My suggestion for handling |motto=, |motto_pl=, |mottoes=:

Currently in UK school articles: |motto=, |motto_pl=
Preferred in target Infobox school: |motto=, |mottoes=

Plan: remove and abandon all |motto_pl= usage before final switchover to Redirect.

Solution:

1. Add |mottoes= to Infobox UK schools:
{{Infobox school
...
| motto = {{{motto|}}}
| mottoes = {{para|motto_pl}}{{para|mottoes}}<!-- covers old and new during switchover days -->
...
2. in UK school articles, replace all |motto_pl=... with |mottoes=... (page list from TDmer?, Nov 5)
3. abandon |motto_pl=... (set as unknown parameter)

This would circumvent the more complicated (to me ;-) ) code. Also, would this impy a save-template at some point (tro effectuate the safesubst)?: 

| motto = {{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />#if:{{{motto_pl|}}}||{{{motto|}}}}}
| mottoes = {{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />#if:{{{motto_pl|}}}|{{{motto|}}}|}}

-DePiep (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Unk parameters category (Nov 4)

@ Jonesey95 Steven (Editor) MSGJ. Jonesey95 has added a parameter whitelist. [4]. However, I don't know if this is the right list. We are still in the process of defining the parameters to be kept/removed. So, the current Category:Pages using infobox UK school with unknown parameters (0) is only useful for parameters already known to be wrong. IOW, it is not fit for automated cleanup. I would like to known which parameter whitelist you choose.

I note that all changes are controversial, because they are under discussion here. Undecided parameters may not be changed. (Actually, I find this a wrong step at the moment, inviting wrong edits). -DePiep (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Jonesey95 Please revert. Totally wrong list, not helpful. Our first job now is: make the parameter list complete & correct. Many parmeters are still undecided, see list below. I'd rather have you helping with that discussion. -DePiep (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I used the list of parameters that is currently supported in the live template; that should never be controversial on its own. Removal of the existing unknown parameter check should not have happened, and should have been controversial at the time of the edit; I was on a wikibreak, so I am just now cleaning up after that edit. Here is a diff that shows which parameters have been removed from the template and from the error check. It looks to me like the following parameters have been removed from the template (and hence, the error check): |alt2=, |council_area=, |deputy_head=, |deputy_head_label=, |free_4 =, |free_5=, |free_label_4 =, |free_label_5 =, |gaelic_name=, |image_upright =, |image_upright2=, |native_name_lang =, |old_urn=, |publication_pl =, |r_deputy_head=, |r_deputy_head_label =, |scottishschoolsonline=, |size2=. If anyone wants to add those back in to the error check, be my guest.
If some parameters are undecided, they should have been left in the template or tested in a sandbox. If they were in the template prior to the above edit, they were removed prior to the completion of discussion, which is not appropriate. If they were not in the template, then they would have been in the error-tracking category already, which is where they are right now, so I haven't changed anything from that state.
It is much easier to work from a tracking category than from the TemplateData monthly report, since the category updates as soon as articles are edited. The category should never have been emptied through the removal of the error-checking code. Also, the error-checking code adds a helpful red error message in Preview. If you want to add unsupported parameters to the parameter checklist, perhaps with a comment in front of them to show that they are under discussion, that would be welcome.
I have been removing long-unsupported parameters like |latitude=, |longitude=, and |dms=. I have no plans to remove any parameters that are under discussion, and I recommend that they be added to the list of parameters that are whitelisted until discussion is complete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand why |free_4 =, |free_5=, |free_label_4 =, and |free_label_5 = were removed from the template, since they are supported by Infobox school. After doing a bit more research into Infobox school and the Infobox UK school unknown parameters category, I have added all parameters from Infobox school's error check into Infobox UK school. People are actively using |logo= and |specialist= in Infobox UK school, for example; both parameters are supported just fine in Infobox school, so there will not be a problem with leaving them in articles. I hope that this will alleviate some of the concerns above, since only parameters that are unsupported in either template will put articles into the Infobox UK school unknown parameter category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
You are supposed to talk abbout the process (i.e., the parameter list - for starters), not supposed to make rough edits and then try to lure us into sidetalks. C'mon. -DePiep (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
DePiep: What is your specific objection to the fixes I have made to fix the broken image placement, fix the broken address rendering, and restore unknown parameter checking in a way that makes it easier to migrate to {{Infobox school}}? As you can see above, I am explaining all of my edits and asking questions about things that are unclear to me. I have not added any functionality from what was present in the template two weeks ago (in fact, there are some documented features that may still be broken by last week's edits), so I am unclear on what your actual, specific objections are. Please link to an article in which the template is working in a way that is inconsistent with the discussions on this page and with the template's documentation. That will help me understand your objections. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The error is, Jonesey95, that your edit does not follow nor help current discussion. We (Steven (Editor) included) are discussing the full parameter list into merging. You did not even write one post re this here, let alone you thought about it. Not once you wrote, like, "shall we do this: ...". That is the error. We here are Talking. -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
My edits absolutely help the discussion; they made the template work as documented and restored the error-checking category so that we could have real-time tracking of usage of unsupported parameters. I explained my reasoning above. Multiple errors were made in edits to the Infobox UK school template last week. I have fixed at least some of those errors. Now that the template is relatively functional again and I have fixed the major flaws that were introduced last week, I have no plans to edit the Infobox UK school template further. Again, please link to an article in which the template is working in a way that is inconsistent with the discussions on this page and with the template's documentation. That will help me understand your objections. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The parameter list is under discussion - full stop. You are supposed not to edit. For example, this removes information that is OK after the merge. MSGJ please revert these changes Jonesey95 made without discussion and breaking things. The whitelist is incorrect and should be removed. (By the way, making seven separate edits in a live template is not good coding practice - another example of bad preparation). -DePiep (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I haven't named any names, since it's not personal, but since MSGJ has been pinged here, that editor is the one who made the initial changes that broke the template's rendering. My edits have partially fixed the rendering, as I have explained multiple times on this page. There are additional problems that still need to be fixed, but I am deferring those, since my fixes thus far have been opposed, albeit without specific evidence that they are doing any harm. No evidence has been provided that my subsequent cleanup edits have broken any templates in any articles. With respect to my removal of | funder = CocaineCouncil , unambiguous vandalism, from a frequently vandalized article, DePiep's statement immediately above is false; |funder= is not a parameter supported by either template involved in this merge, and it is not a parameter under discussion. Please stop making false statements about my editing, as you have done multiple times on this page and on my talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I pingen MSGJ because they have the right rights to edit. albeit without specific evidence that they are doing any harm.: the diff I just gave shows the harm. The problem with your edits is, as I wrote from the start: the parameters to use are under discussion right here, and you completely denied that. Even now, one day and multiple posts later, you still show not to be interested in the process we were going through. The whitelist you use,m and so the edits you make, are not towards a merge. Now you try to start about individual parameters, without acknowledging the process that is needed. Why don't you cooperate with the parameter list building? -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Please stop making false statements about me, such as "the parameters to use are under discussion right here, and you completely denied that" and "you still show not to be interested in the process we were going through." Continuing to do so is simply bad faith.
The diff you gave shows no harm, as I explained. There needs to be a whitelist in place so that we can identify and fix uses of parameters that will not be valid after the merge. Using the TemplateData monthly error report is partially helpful, but it contains some errors, like saying that |size2= is invalid, so we can't depend on it fully. Also, it is updated only once a month, which makes it impossible to see a real-time list of articles with errors. Removing the whitelist from the template would hinder the merge process.
So my question above still stands: what specific changes should we make to the Infobox UK school whitelist in order to conform with the discussion on this page? I have proposed, for example, that we add |dfeno= to the whitelist because it is under discussion here, but nobody has commented on that proposal. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Process talk (Nov 6)

(For general process talk, let's meet here). -DePiep (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: removal of deprecated parameters asap

Currently, {{Infobox school}} has 16 parameters that are uppercase-variants like |Principal= for |principal=. None of these are used in articles any more.

I propose to remove them from the live code, and remove them from tracking category. At this moment, the code is in {{Infobox school/sandbox}} (permalink diff). These are the only diffferences with the live template (IOW, no pending other changes in the sandbox present). Also, the parameters will appear as "unknown parameters" in the tracking category.

Parameters to remove: Opened Location Region Number Principal Years Students Students as of International_Students System Hours_in_Day Campuses National_ranking Graduates Logo Classes offered.

  • Same for Module:Infobox school tracking (permalink Diff). These two edits are independent (can be done separately), but best is to do both ~at the same time. -DePiep (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Also: changed internal parameter name "_nocat" into "cat" when calling the module (only categorise mainspace pages). -DePiep (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
     Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks, glad it/I was clear enough. -DePiep (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

ENGVAR

We need to check on whether the UK has (implicit) en-GB variants in use. So far the only variants known are:

  • |colours=, |colors= -> handled OK in {{Infobox school}}
  • |school_colours=, |school_colors= (and punctuation variants) -> handled OK in {{Infobox school}}
  • Any other labels in en-GB in {{Infobox UK school/sep2018version}}?
-DePiep (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Nice work. I checked and do not see any others. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Tracking category proposal

About {{Infobox UK school}} and Category:Pages using infobox UK school with unknown parameters (0). Currently, the template does pass-through the parameters. Effect: no Preview warning for unknown parameters, and no categorisation (The cat is now ~empty). Proposal, see {{Infobox UK school/sandbox}}: added Module:Check for unknown parameters, using the parameter whitelist list of {{Infobox school}}. This way, all problematic parameters are categorised for cleanup (either edit the article, or adjust the target infobox). Our job is to empty that category. Note that we use the UK category, so it is nicely dedicated for this issue and it does what it is for (bad parameters indeed do not show in the article right now!).

Proposal: check me, and replace all {{Infobox UK school}} code with {{Infobox UK school/sandbox}} code (diff). -DePiep (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Lots of those parameters are not used currently, e.g. colors, schoolnumber, accreditation, ... Need to whittle them down to the actual parameters accepted by the template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
(ec) To test the sandbox, Preview this one: [5]. Works with me. -DePiep (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
re MSGJ IMO irrelevant for the Merge process and so to be postponed. Removing parameters from the target template can be done after the merge completion. We only need to make sure: the moment we make the one edit that Redirects {{Infobox UK school}} to {{Infobox school}}, all parameters that are used in the {{Infobox UK school}}-articles are covered. Target {{Infobox school}} parameters only should be changed to solve conflicts with UK schools. -DePiep (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
... but if you mean to say: "some parameters are incorrectly in the original whitelist already", then you are right. Edit them out of in {{Infobox school}} (talk) then, and copy/paste again, I'd say. For this job, the whitelists must be the same. -DePiep (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
.... and meanwhile, emptying Category:Pages using infobox school with unsupported parameters (343) is welcome, is a hell of a job, and does not interfere with the Merge process (it is within the {{Infobx school}} world only). - DePiep (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 Done. As discussed above, I implemented the error check using the parameter whitelists from both the current version of Infobox UK school and the current version of Infobox school. That way, the only parameters that should show up as unsupported in the error category are parameters that are not supported by either template.
The one parameter currently left off the whitelist that should probably be added during this merge discussion is |dfeno= (about 2,400 instances, and there are only ~3,000 articles in the error category). I propose that this parameter be added to the whitelist, at least during the merge discussion, so that it will not cause articles to be in the error category. As long as |dfeno= generates red error messages, we run the risk that well-meaning editors will remove this possibly useful parameter. If we decide in the discussion that we want to remove this parameter, a bot can remove it from articles during the merge.
DePiep: You have repeatedly said that the whitelist I implemented was wrong. If you still believe that to be the case, please explain which specific parameters should be removed from the current whitelist, which should be added, or both. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course, emptying the Infobox school category is totally different from the UK school one. If you still believe that to be the case: I already pointed out an errorful edit you made. Now you don't need to start a discussion this way from scratch make me answer your enforced situation. You only need to go along with the merge process we have been discussing here for some ten days. The correct whitelist followsd (not by "belief" btw but by "rational merge process needs"). -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Overview

Hi MSGJ, thanks for doing those changes above and for your great work so far. Lets simplify things, below is a list of all parameters from Infobox UK school showing current and deprecated parameters, what became an alias and some other changes:

checkY = already present  · checkY = became an alias  ·  Done = merged  · → = to rename into ☒N = to delete  · EqualY = full synonym (interchangeable)  · Question? = to discuss

Current

Undisputed. Old UK school parameter names work 1:1 in target template {{Infobox school}}.
  • Group: Identity
name checkY
native_name checkY
type checkY
motto checkY
colours checkY
  • Group: Students
capacity  Done
gender checkY
lower_age checkY
upper_age checkY
  • Group: Staff & leaders
head_label checkY
head checkY
r_head_label checkY
r_head checkY
Note that r_head_label is required for r_head to display in Infobox school. In Infobox UK school (until last week), it would show "Religious head" if r_head_label was blank; this is one of many features that were broken by last week's edits; I will defer fixing it, since there has been so much objection to my fixes thus far. We might consider porting this feature to Infobox school. If not, we need to populate some instances of Infobox UK school, which is probably harder to do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
You're right on that. Although I don't think this will be a problem as after checking the monthly error report for Infobox UK school, this parameter has 455 uses compared with 410 for |r_head= - don't think any data will be missing. Also checked some of the articles using this and it is being used to display some info where there is a dedicated parameter available in Infobox school, especially |chaplain= for example. So this can be updated as and when someone comes across an article to help tidy up the infobox. Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I saw at least one article where r_head was populated but r_head_label was empty. Putting a default value in Infobox school should not be a problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
This discussion has reached consensus. These parameters are being kept. A post-merge discussion may lead to further refinement. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I can see you have added the default "Religious head" which is good, not sure why this didn't have it before, but I do think the requirement for r_head_label in order for r_head to display was a bit odd and didn't fit with the rest of the template. These parameters are being kept as they are used in both templates and definitely a further refinement (the other duplicate less-used parameter). Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)  Task complete.
chair_label checkY
chair checkY
staff checkY
president checkY
  • Group: Image
image checkY
alt checkY
caption checkY
  • Group: Pushpin map
pushpin_image checkY
pushpin_label checkY
pushpin_label_position checkY
pushpin_map checkY
pushpin_map_alt checkY
pushpin_map_caption checkY
pushpin_mapsize checkY
  • Group: Geo location
coordinates checkY
district checkY
city checkY
county checkY
country checkY
postcode checkY
  • Group: ID code
urn  Done - can capitalised URN be added with this lowercase urn becoming an alias? Can the infobox display title for this be changed so that it displays as "Department for Education URN" rather than "DfE URN"? Follows in liaison with New Zealand's equivalent which is MOE but displayed as "Ministry of Education Institution no."
I do not oppose, but it might be simpler if we keep this discussion about the merger and avoid any additional changes which are not pertinent to the merge. The current behaviour matches the long-standing behaviour of {{infobox UK school}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'll put this for another discussion, but could you change the display title from DfE URN to Department for Education URN? I've made this change in the sandbox, please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)  Task complete.
ofsted  Done
  • Group: History
founder checkY
established checkY
closed checkY
  • Group: Free labels & data input
free_label_1, 2, 3, 4, 5 checkY (→ free_label1 (etc.) -after-merge discussion)
free_1, 2, 3, 4, 5 checkY (→ free_text1 (etc.) -after-merge discussion)
|free_1= and |free_label_1= etc. are supported by {{Infobox school}}, so there is no need to rename them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
(todo: check UKschool showing all 1–5) -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Other
trust  Done - not sure why I said it should be displayed after school type field, but can this be moved to below the oversight parameter? It doesn't look right in its current position
Can you make required change to Template:Infobox school/sandbox and make sure it "looks right" before I move it again? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Done, also changed the display title for urn, which you can see below Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)  Task complete.
houses checkY
publication checkY
website checkY
medium checkY EqualY |medium= mediums= medium_of_language= medium of language== - unclear what this is saying; not exactly an alias in target
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology I don't know haha, basically medium_of_language (produces the output "Medium of language" in infobox) is the main medium parameter in this format, but it also has three child/equivalent parameters that can be used instead and produces the same result: medium, mediums and medium of language. There is a problem however, using even all 4 of these variations does not produce a warning saying "Using more than one of the following parameters:" and allows the use of all 4, but will display only one - this needs to be fixed. I don't know why we have these three, but ultimately I think it's best to have these three removed, think it's just creating clutter in the code. As the other params require renaming, thought it would be easier to rename this at the same time, that way it would reduce the total use. What you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
There are four synonyms, the template picks only one. |medium= is in the target template, so no need to change anything. Current UKschool maps like this: | medium_of_language = {{{medium|}}}. About removing the other names: skip issue for now, not relevant in Merge process. -DePiep (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
To be clear: no rename needed. -DePiep (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Rename

When used in article, edit parameter name into new name (the Infobox school name). Technical process is described elsewhere.
  • religion checkY → religious_affiliation
  • street checkY → address
    |street= is also supported, so it does not need to be renamed; I have fixed the address parameter mapping in Infobox UK school in the last few hours. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    I originally added |street= to be renamed to |address= because it is the main parameter with |street= and |streetaddress= being aliases/synonyms. I've already added these to be renamed and deleted in after-merge discussion as they are unnecessary. But because the bot will be running through articles using Infobox UK school, may as well do it at the same time with the other rename parameters, what you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    I think "address" is more confusing than "street", since (in the US at least), an address is the whole street/city/zip combination. But since |street= is not used at all in Infobox school and address is used 17,000+ times, let's rename street to address during the merge. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • size → image_size
Size to image_size discussion: N/A. Resolved, this is the correct rename: see image2
  • I don't think this is right; |size= applies to |image=, which is used for the school logo and is mapped to |logo= in {{Infobox school}}. During the migration, |size= will need to be changed to |logo_size=. We should create a separate table on this talk page in which we list all current parameters and what they should be changed to by the bot/script that does the eventual migration. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    Hmmm, I don't think that's right either because in Infobox school, there's |logo= for the logo with |logo_size= for manual resize, and |image= to add a secondary image that is displayed below the logo with |image_size= for manual resize. In Infobox UK school, |image= is for the logo with |size= for manual resize and |image2= to add a secondary image with |size2= for manual resize. Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    Agreed. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. We are saying the same thing, or close enough that we can stop pretending to argue. When we create a mapping table, it will be clear what gets renamed to what. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    The latest pre-merge version ("sep2018" has in code:
OLD UK school:
| image      = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{image|}}}|size={{{size|}}}|upright={{{image_upright|}}}|alt={{{alt|}}}}}
| caption    = {{{caption|}}}

TARGET Infobox school:
| image3 = ... |image={{{image|}}} ... size={{{image_size|}}}
This says: no "logo" involved, and "size" relates to "image". Hence, old |size= should map to |image_size=. -DePiep (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I do not think this is correct. Again, the template's image handling is confusing, but it helps to read the documentation. I believe that the way I have mapped things in the template currently is correct.
In the documentation |image= is for "The name of the school logo's image file". The example given is "School_Logo.png". |size=, listed directly below |logo=, applies to logo and is described as "For rare situations where you need to force the width of the image." |caption= applies to logo and says "A caption for the image." The example given is "The school crest". |alt= also applies to the logo. In the Sep2018 version, you can see that all four of these parameters are used in the first InfoboxImage invocation.
In the documentation |image2= is for "The name of a secondary image file". The example given is "School_Building.png". |size2=, applies to image2 and is described as "Explicit width for the secondary image." |caption2= applies to image2 and says "A caption for the secondary image." |alt2= also applies to image2. In the Sep2018 version, you can see that all four of these parameters are used in the second InfoboxImage invocation.
Parameter in Infobox UK school Equivalent parameter in Infobox school
image logo
size logo_size
caption ???? logo_caption not supported*
alt logo_alt
image2 image
size2 image_size
alt2 alt
caption2 caption
I hope this helps. [*edited to add: I have seen images of the school in |image=, along with |caption= (which is then not displayed). Also, |caption= is used 3,266 times in Infobox UK school, which means if we simply ignore/delete it, we will probably be deleting useful information. This may require some manual intervention, checking uses of |caption= before migration. Or perhaps we migrate |caption= to |logo_caption= and then put that parameter in the post-merge discussion.] – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • LEA  Done → local_authority - now local_authority which will be used instead and in liaison with the other authority-related params available. Not sure if already done, but LEA needs to be made as an alias of local_authority (currently shown separate in TemplateData). It can be changed to local_authority later with the help of a bot
    Yes, LEA is an alias for local_authority — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    That's perfect, although still appearing separately in TemplateData, any ideas? Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    |LEA= is a supported alias in Infobox school, so there is no need to do anything with it in Infobox UK school. I have been verbally abused for editing TemplateData, which is too poorly documented for my taste, so I make a practice of never touching it. You might post at a relevant talk page or look at similar documentation pages to try to fix the separate appearance here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    Actually, |LEA= needs to be renamed to |local_authority= (what you saw in the bot run) and then deleted completely. There's no need to keep LEA, may as well do it at the same time with the other rename parameters and the schools are under "Local authority" not "LEA" Steven (Editor) (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    Sounds good with me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • locality → location - is this parameter really needed? Currently works in Infobox UK school but I'm curious to know exactly how many articles would be using this. When filled in, it appears below the address (street name) in the infobox. UK school addresses, and the many UK school articles I've come across on here do not use this parameter and were using the city parameter even if the school is located in a town, but it is structured as address (street name), town/city, county, postcode, country (these parameters are already there)
If I understand its meaning well (no hidden UK meaning subtleties involved?): indeed, no need to add this param to the target infobox. However, its data (article input) should be kept. Let's: 1. Deprecate this one (do not add to Infobox school), 2. When used in an UKschool article, rewrite its data in other address/location parameters, & remove this parmater name. (technically: can be listed/categorised in merge period for editing: all right). - DePiep (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
|locality= is currently mapped to Infobox school's |location= parameter. The bot or script that does the pre-merge cleanup will need to fix this in articles before a redirect is put in place. There are similar mapping issues that will need to be handled with a script or bot. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • enrollment checkY → enrolment - this should be renamed to |enrolment= as when Infobox UK school is redirected to Infobox school, this parameter will appear as “Enrollment”. So I think it’s best to rename this along with the other rename parameters
    Fine with me to do it this way, but I thought we were moving this parameter (in either form) to |students=. Again, I'm fine with either. You decide, and we'll call that consensus. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think |enrolment= is being used much - I've only seen |enrollment= being used in UK schools and the UK documentation has this parameter listed but the way it is displayed in the infobox is "Number of students", but this is wrong anyway, because some schools refer to their students as "Pupils" and "Enrolment" - no freedom to change in this setup, whereas Infobox school has multiple options to cater for each school. So I was thinking it would be best to rename it to |enrolment= and then as time goes on, these can be changed manually to students, pupils or leave as enrolment depending on how the school refers to them; I see enrolment as being more of a standard name between the two. What you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    I'm all mixed up. The documentation for Infobox UK school has "enrolment", "enrollment", and "Number of students". I simply have no opinion on this one, so I'll go along with whatever you put into the full list of parameters below. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    That may be because of the merge, but I'm pretty sure that before merge, there was only |enrollment=. Well, if you look at any few random school articles using Infobox UK school and look at the parameter list, you'll see |enrollment=. If you find |enrolment=, wowzers. Anyway, we'll go with renaming it to |enrolment= Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete

Parameter not supported in merged template. Remove (delete) from UK school articles. Technical process is described elsewhere.
  • (dfeno placement pending discussion)
  • old_urn ☒N - not supported by previous version
    NB: I am manually removing |old_urn= from articles. See the Infobox UK school talk page for discussion about removing support for this parameter. I have found in removing other parameters that there is sometimes strange text that should be moved to another parameter, not simply removed, so rather than have a bot remove them in a batch, I'm doing them by hand. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • dcsfurn ☒N - this is a predecessor parameter and after checking the monthly error report for Infobox UK school, there are 93 uses (Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) is a preceding department of the present Department for Education that was dissolved in 2010)
    All blank dcsfurn parameters can be removed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    So |dcsfurn= no longer requires renaming to |urn=, you've done this manually and it can be deleted, right? Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    Correct. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • deputy_head_label ☒N - per above "we don't report on deputies/assistants". (also per previous talk page consensus)
  • deputy_head ☒N - per above (also per previous talk page consensus)
  • r_deputy_head_label ☒N - per above (also per previous talk page consensus)
  • r_deputy_head ☒N - per above (also per previous talk page consensus)
    I am removing all deputy-related parameters from articles by hand. I have found that one out of every ten or twenty require human judgement to move one or more parameter values to a valid parameter, so this context-sensitive task should not be done by a bot. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • approx ☒N - long time deprecated, not used in target template.
    I have removed all of the non-blank instances manually. A significant number of them contained text that needed to be moved, prepended, or appended to another parameter's value. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • c_approx ☒N - long time deprecated, not used in target template.
    I have removed all of the non-blank instances manually. A significant number of them contained text that needed to be moved, prepended, or appended to another parameter's value. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • native_name_lang ☒N - per Infobox UK school documentation: "The ISO 639-2 code for the language of the school's non-English name. e.g. "cy" for Welsh." No visual change to infobox and after checking monthly error report for Infobox UK school, only 9 uses for this parameter. Because of low usage and whether this is really needed, I propose for this parameter to be deleted
    Agreed. I have replaced all nine instances, inserting the {{lang}} template into |native_name= as appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • motto_pl ☒N
    All blank motto_pl parameters can be removed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • founder_pl ☒N
    All blank founder_pl parameters can be removed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • specialist_pl ☒N
    All blank specialist_pl parameters can be removed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • publication_pl ☒N - no plural parameter for this at present in Infobox school. I think the best workaround would be to add a publications parameter so the user can choose either publication or publications, and publication_pl to remain deprecated renamed. With the help of a bot, can be changed to publications but it would be good to know how many articles are using this, as if it's a small amount, can be done manually. Could just add publication_pl but then we won't be following the same method as the other plural parameters that are available
    Moved to post-merge discussion. All existing parameters have been handled. Blank publication_pl= parameters should be removed by the bot. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    You're right and thanks for doing this, there was only 17 uses - low use and I've noticed many schools are using |publication= to display more than one. So I don't think it would be worth adding a plural one and best to leave as it is. But if this is really needed, then perhaps changing the display title to "Publication(s)" might be better, but this can be discussed in after-merge discussion anyway. Steven (Editor) (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)  Task complete.
  • website_name ☒N - is this parameter really needed? We have Template:URL (used for the website parameter) and Template:Official website which allows the adding of custom text instead. Can be this made unsupported so that it populates the category. The website parameter will suffice and I can check template data when update tomorrow to see how many articles are using this, can remove and move custom text to website parameter? Or can be removed with the help of a bot.
Agree strongly to delete before merge (& remove from articles). As noted by Steven: just follow ubiquitous templates {{URL}} and {{Official website}}, which do not have this option. -DePiep (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
We have consensus to remove this parameter and its values. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • bodystyle ☒N - I think the current width of the infobox is perfectly fine and doesn't require manual resizing. This parameter is not supported in Infobox school but after checking the monthly error report, only 1 use (a school in Scotland) which I have removed. There is an equivalent parameter: |box_width= but only 17 uses - going to propose getting this deleted as part of after-merge discussion, the infobox doesn't look nice at all when manually resized (have a look at the articles using this parameter and then remove altogether and see the difference). For Infobox UK school, only 7 uses (technically 5, as 2 have been filled in wrong with school name and URL) but because of low usage and whether this is really needed, I propose for this parameter to be deleted
    Nobody contributed to this discussion section during the merge maintenance. Propose converting to |box_width= and discussing box_width in the post-merge discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    Steven (Editor), do you have any opinion on this? It looks like we are the last two editors here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    I'm all for deleting this parameter completely per my reasoning above and not really any use in keeping it. How about you? At least there's two and not one haha Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    I'm OK with deleting it. As of the most recent monthly report, it was used as intended in only four articles. If editors want to reinstitute those values within Infobox school, I suppose they could. We have consensus here to delete the parameter and any value within it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • image_upright ☒N - after checking the monthly error report for Infobox UK school, no result for this parameter, does this exist or not added for error checking? Any ideas of what this parameter actually does? I don't think this is needed
    |image_upright= and |image_uprights=: "upright" is a modern way to set image size, see WP:UPRIGHT. (size=200px is a hard number, while upright=1.2 is a relative scaling and so works nicer in mobile view etc.).
    I support deletion. Both parameters exist in old UKschools, but *not* in the target Infobox. This suggests we should add the parameters to {{Infobox school}} to support them. But they are not used at all in UKschool articles, and so we can decide to remove these from the template (delete & remove) without breaking anything. IOW, do not include in the merge. Then discuss to add it later to the infobox (after-merge idea). -DePiep (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    Delete. All images in Infobox school are upright by default. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Group: Image2
How images are displayed in both infoboxes are the same (logo at top, image below), but because there is a slight variation between the parameters: Infobox school has |logo= for logo and |image= for secondary image (below logo) whereas Infobox UK school has |image= for logo and |image2= for secondary image (below logo), I think it's best we put our focus on the other parameters under "Discuss" as we can get through those swiftly and move them into the appropriate subsection above. As those will be cleared and out of the way, we can put our focus on this image situation and how this is going to be handled, e.g. do we add a new |image2=, deprecate |image2= and go through the 139 uses of it by changing |image= to |logo= and |image2= to |image=, or rename |image2= to |picture=? Different ideas/solutions but you get what I mean Steven (Editor) (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
image2 ☒N
alt2 ☒N
caption2 ☒N
image_upright2 ☒N - see |image_upright= above
size2 ☒N
re: not available in target infobox. Urgent note: today image2 does not show in UKschools! -DePiep (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi DePiep, after checking the monthly error report for Infobox UK school, it provides the following results for the total use of the above parameters: |image2= = 139, |alt2= = 3, |caption2= = 62, |image_upright2= = no result (does this parameter exist or not added for error checking?) and |size2= = 77. Ultimately there is no need for these parameters. To make things easier, as |image2= is displayed at the bottom, this can be renamed to |picture= (also displayed at bottom) and you mentioned merging for |picture= but not sure if you meant renaming to (well merging/renaming pretty much the same)? |caption2= to be renamed to |picture_caption=, |alt2= not needed so we can manually remove the 3 uses without issue (also shows low usage of parameter and there's no alt anyway for picture). In addition to info above regarding |image_upright2=, any ideas of what this parameter actually does? I don't think this is needed. |size2= not needed if we're opting for |image2= to |picture= rename which doesn't have manual sizing (let's not forget the current 696 uses of |picture= which aren't being manually resized) and the infobox displays images in pre-set/auto sizing are perfect (I checked some of the articles using this parameter and removed it, replacing with only |picture= and |picture_caption= and it displays the picture perfectly - the manual sizing unnecessary and not to mention that images can be clicked on to enlarge, and current top image parameters: |logo=, |seal= and |image= have manual sizing). I think this is a good solution for this parameter problem, what you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
|image_upright2= = not in TDmer list: not used in articles (zero appearances). "added for error checking": is not the way it works. TDmer checks all parameters used in template:X in all template:X-transcluding articles. When the parametername is in TemplateData it has a "Y", and a "N" for not in TemplateData (this is only secondary; being Y/N does not affect listing a parameter in TDmer). Bottom of the page is a link to non-TD defined parameters. - DePiep (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
|image2= and other image parameters were not mapped quite right after the initial remapping of the template. I have fixed them to match the documentation. A bot or script will need to go through articles and replace the parameters appropriately. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I have a solution and the best way forward. As already mentioned: Infobox school has |logo= for logo and |image= for secondary image (below logo) whereas Infobox UK school has |image= for logo and |image2= for secondary image (below logo). Per the monthly error report for the UK one, there is 139 uses for |image2= - I'm currently going through these and changing |image= to |logo= and |image2= to |image= (including its respective parameters such as alt and size etc). When I've finished (also changing the entire infobox to Infobox school and removing unsupported parameters at the same, tedious I know but why not), |image2= and its respective parameters can be safely deleted (will let you know when I'm done). |image= and its respective parameters should remain unchanged (also because of high use, 2,517), it just needs to be mapped to the same |image= parameters in Infobox school - so image and image, alt and alt, caption and caption. The reason we put to rename size to image_size is so we can consolidate on the unnecessary aliases/synomyms which can be done by a bot. Yes I'm aware in Infobox school that image is for images and not logo, but for the time being it should be no problem, can be changed to logo manually as time goes on. Also because there are already some articles using this for the logo. DePiep, Jonesey95, what you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
What do I think? I think Jonesey95 spoiled the whole reasonable process we did set up, as I pointed out earlier. So my opinion does not matter any more. -DePiep (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Steven (Editor), are you changing image= to logo= only when image2 is present? If so, I think your approach is reasonable. As I wrote below, the only big question I have is what to do with |caption= when it is applied to a logo image. There is no |logo_caption= supported in Infobox school. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
That’s right, only the articles that are using |image2=. So when I’m finished, |image2=, |size2=, |alt2= and |caption2= can be deleted completely as they are no longer being used. That means Infobox UK school is left with |image=, |size= (propose to change this to |image_size= so we don’t add |size= as an alias - consolidate), |alt= and |caption= which are all already present in Infobox school. Essentially the image parameters in Infobox school would be used as an image below logo for all other schools (as it already does) and will act as the logo parameter for UK schools. An editor who comes across a UK school and wishes to add an image below the logo, would have to change |image= to |logo= and then add |image= to add an image which will display below the logo. If you’re still unsure let me know, but this will work. Also the image parameter in UK schools is not being used solely for the logo, I’ve come across many which are using it to display an image of the school, but that’s the other reason why I believe this is the right approach. Steven (Editor) (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I support this approach. |size= is already supported by Infobox school, so there should not be a need to change it in UK school infoboxes. If we want to deprecate it post-merge, that can go into the post-merge discussion below. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Done Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)  Task complete.
  • Group: UK-specific
scottishschoolsonline ☒N - this seems to have come from Template:Infobox Scotland school which was merged/redirected in 2013 but was not shown in the documentation. I've not seen Scottish Schools Online being used for any of the Scottish schools I've come across but I can't seem to find the actual page. After checking the monthly error report for Infobox UK school, only 10 uses and I've noticed three different links that are used: www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scottishschoolsonline (after checking an archived school link, this was the official Scottish Schools Online provided by the Government but no longer exists), www.ltscotland.org.uk/scottishschoolsonline (looks like a non-Government/alternative website, the school links to this redirect to homepage, see here for example) and https://education.gov.scot/parentzone which works, looks like the successor to Scottish Schools Online and provided by the Government. However, it's called Parentzone Scotland and the schools are identified via its URN equivalent, SEED Number (perhaps in the after-merge discussion we could look at adding a SEED parameter to cater for schools in Scotland). Because of low usage and as Scottish Schools Online no longer exists, I propose for this parameter to be deleted
gaelic_name ☒N - is this parameter really needed? After checking the monthly error report for Infobox UK school, only 14 uses and because there is already a |native_name= parameter which is per documentation: "Name of the school in its native language, if different from its English name", I think its best to change it to this and because of low usage, it can be done manually (noticed Jonesey95 has the same idea)
|gaelic_name= should probably be moved to |native_name=, using a {{lang}} template to indicate use of Gaelic. There are only 14 of these, so they could be done by hand. |scottishschoolsonline= is used in only 14 articles, but it was supported by the September 2018 version of the template. We should probably do a manual conversion to |free_1=, or whatever the first available "free" parameter is. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Please be clear. number of usage (e.g., per TDmet) is not that relevant. Do you propose to either delete |gaelic_name, scottishschoolsonline= (completely), or should we re-use that information (by renaminng into |native_name=)? -DePiep (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, delete both parameters completely per reasons I mentioned - I've replaced |gaelic_name= with |native_name= and it can be deleted safely. Please can you comment on these parameters to show your support on whether you agree with my reasons for deletion, thanks DePiep Steven (Editor) (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete |scottishschoolsonline=, move |gaelic_name= to |native_name= using {{lang}} with 1=gd. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Already done, see comment just above yours haha Steven (Editor) (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)  Task complete.
council_area ☒N - this seems to have come from Template:Infobox Scotland school which was merged/redirected in 2013 but was not shown in the documentation. After checking the monthly error report for Infobox UK school, only 32 uses but because of low usage and as Scotland schools use local authority, I propose for this parameter to be deleted
From the description at Subdivisions of Scotland, it may be appropriate to replace instances of |council_area= with |local_authority= and then to delete the parameter. It was supported in the Sep 2018 version of Infobox UK school, and was removed without any discussion that I can find. (Also, please sign your posts.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I knew I had forgotten something, I was supposed to put about renaming it to |local_authority= just before “deleted”, but glad we’re on the same page. I didn’t sign because as I started this list with intro text at top and signed at bottom, I’m the one that’s added descriptions next to the parameters and then signed when editors have replied to them, which you can see. I think I signed the intial descriptions and if I did, whether this was changed or not, I can’t remember, I’ll have to look at the edit history, is this confusing? Steven (Editor) (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Since this discussion is threaded, it is easier if each paragraph is signed. The whole discussion has gotten a bit messy, but it is mostly resolved; I will work on a table of parameters that might make it easier to see what is left to sort out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there is any more parameters, still check to be sure, but I added some to this list and DePiep found more that was in the code and added to a collapsible list below, which I've added them all to this list. Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
All populated |council_area= parameters have been handled. The bot should remove any empty instances. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
You're right, I went and checked them again; you did some and I did some when I was handling the other parameter, awesome Steven (Editor) (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)  Task complete.
These all look right to me. They should be removed from Infobox UK school instances if they are present. The unknown parameter check should surface them into the error category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
All parameters in this section have been emptied or converted to supported parameters. All blank instances of these parameters should be deleted by the bot. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

To be decided, then move into right subsection above.
  • dfeno ☒N - not supported by previous version (postponed, discussion to continue after-merge)
    |dfeno= was supported until 2017, and at least one editor says that it is useful to display it for historical and research reasons. See the Infobox UK school talk page. I have not been removing this parameter, and I think that we should add it to the parameter whitelist until we decide on it. Pinging ClemRutter. (edited to add: According to the monthly report, there are 2,428 articles using |dfeno=, out of 3,128 total articles in the "unknown parameters" category.)– Jonesey95 (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    The dfeno has reappeared in official documents but is now called LAESTAB. I suggest the field caption should be LAESTAB/dfeno. I do not support expanding dfe to Department for Education, as it is never used in full in official documents.LAESTAB example --ClemRutter (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    In that case, we should add |dfeno= back to the template ASAP and then add |LAESTAB= as an alias post-merge. Page watchers, please make substantive objections soon if you have them. If there are no valid objections, I will restore |dfeno= to the template in 24 hours or so. ClemRutter, is there a URL scheme that works with dfeno/LAESTAB numbers, or should we just display the number as plain text? – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    In the example above the school is part of a Multi-academy trust that is identified with UID: 16564. Most schools now are involved in MAT, we at WP haven't yet caught up. If you look at The Hundred of Hoo Academy the article discusses the governance and the importance of the MAT, but the infobox doesn't mention the MAT, MAT UID, the Executive Headteacher but just the Local Headteacher. This is hacked on some articles by using the open fields, but if we are merging, this needs to be fixed. Perhaps the discussion needs to take place in a separate section. ClemRutter (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    Let's discuss the MAT and Executive Headteacher issues in the post-merge changes section, since it does not make sense to add to Infobox UK school. Infobox school has a lot more parameters for principals and heads of various sorts, so we might be able to use one of those for executive headteachers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    Again with the MATs, just like what you did during the merge discussion that I initiated a while back. I would recommend going back and reading what I replied to you regarding MATs, the overcomplicating of the infobox. First of all, I don't agree with adding |dfeno= back, not just because its unsupported but the reason is simple; simplicity. I remember when this and the |urn= parameters had links to two different pages and worked (you may remember EduBase and schools finder which are non-existent). However, you can see the government has simplified/consolidated on how it displays info for schools. |urn= would suffice and in the infobox, this is linked to the "Get information about schools" page which has all the info about the school, including the three different ID's which are grouped together: URN, DfE number and UKPRN (someone visiting a school article on Wikipedia and clicked on the URN will be taken to this info page where they can see all this info/ID numbers), and "Tables" which appears next to it and linked to the schools comparison page (don't forget we also have |ofsted= that links to the schools reports and also has info about the school - only URN is displayed and is right below the school name). When searching for a school, the page allows you to search by name, URN (Unique Reference Number), LAESTAB (Local Authority Establishment Number), UKPRN (UK ProviderReference Number) or by location and local authority. Another thing is that the URL for all of the schools on this Government website end with the its URN. What I find interesting is that you said above "If you look at The Hundred of Hoo Academy the article discusses the governance and the importance of the MAT, but the infobox doesn't mention the MAT, MAT UID, the Executive Headteacher" - have you forgotten that there is a |trust= parameter which is for "If the school is a sponsor led academy or a foundation school it may be part of a trust or foundation." Why have you not added this? This is where you add the name of the trust and you can link it to either its own dedicated article that would have info/website links etc. or to a section within that school article. Also, conveniently there is already an |executive_headteacher= parameter, another one of your problems solved (or you can make use of the additional head-related parameters available). As for a possible UID parameter to identify the trust, best to leave this for the after-merge discussion. Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    I am OK with deleting all |dfeno= if |urn= provides all necessary information to find the school. ClemRutter, is there information provided by dfeno that urn does not provide? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    Since discussion about |dfeno= is ongoing, I have added it to the parameter whitelist (with an explanatory note) so that well-meaning editors will not remove it from articles (yet). I have not added dfeno as a displayed parameter in the rendered template, since that would be controversial. Thank you all for continuing to participate in this discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    It appears from the above discussion that |urn= is sufficient to link from any school's infobox to the UK schools web site, that the DFENO/LAESTAB identifier appears on each URN page, and that |dfeno=/|LAESTAB= adds no value. Since ClemRutter has not responded further, it looks like the bot should remove it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    Agreed Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    Sorry, folks- there have been other events of higher priority this last week. I was happy with the holding position. I am not happy with the idea of having to use an external site to discover the LEA number in the dfeno. (the bit infront of the slash). I am not happy in loosing the traditional identifier- in favour of the current one. The infobox is not just a library index card but a source of infomation for the researcher in its own right. If the logic ' of we can just look on the URN page ' is used for the dfeno- we could strip other items from the infobox- like the address or the Head of Schools name. Now soon we will be using the infoboxes to populate wikidata entities, I want the dfeno to be present then. One of the meetings I was attending was the London Wikidata meetup. The question I had in mind was how do we use a wikidata scraping, populate a infobox field- (the answer was on the lines - we are not at that point yet) I am looking for a simple template that we can embed in the schools infobox {{wikidata|thispage|property=no_on_roll}} or if it is in a infobox the template writer could {{wikidata|p123}}using defaults and magic words and cryptic property numbers- so while not obligatory, the dfeno needs to stay until we have got wikidata talking back properly. ClemRutter (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    Ok, |dfeno= had a link to a dedicated page just like |urn=. Here is an example of a dfeno link for Eton College: schoolsfinder.direct.gov.uk/8686016/overview/ and here's an archive link for you in case you may have forgotten what this page used to look like: web.archive.org/web/20150104023011/http://schoolsfinder.direct.gov.uk/8686016/overview/. As you can see, it just has info on the school such as name, address, type, a page on performance scores citing where Ofsted reports etc. can be found, a map page and local authority details. Let's have a look at the urn link for Eton College: get-information-schools.service.gov.uk/Establishments/Establishment/Details/110158, oh look, exactly the same with more info (note the ending direct.gov.uk no longer exists as this was merged with Business Link to form the present GOV.UK). Also want to mention that it's not really a "URN" page, it's just a standard school information page provided by the Government. Pigsonthewing was first to notice the site being down in October 2017 and you replied in January 2018 with "One can see why- as {{Schoolsfinder}} is broken. The dfe website is being reformated and replaced by the "Get information about schools" (England) website." (that website is the current "urn" page). Jonesey95 commented with "It looks like the UK government is standardizing on "URN", which is supported by {{EduBase}} and this infobox. {{Schoolsfinder}} is probably no longer needed." - I agree, it's no longer needed and URN seems to be used mostly (see comment above and Ofsted URL's end with the URN number too). The possibility of adding dfeno back should be a new discussion as what you are describing is not the original purpose for this parameter and slightly different to your original proposal of not having it linked. I see urn as being adequate for the infobox, so |dfeno= should be removed from articles. Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    ClemRutter, how would you propose bringing over this unsupported |dfeno= parameter into Infobox school? As a plain text identifier, linking to nothing? The whole point of having the DFENO value in the Infobox UK school template, as far as I can tell, was to link it to a web page that is now defunct and has been subsumed by the web page provided by |urn=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    Steven (Editor) Nice analsis of websites but would you please stop using private schools in your examples- it winds us up before we look at the argument, and add an extra layer of confusion. They are politically toxic. Please look to real state schools where the dfeno had real meaning. The Hundred of Hoo Academy, Nottingham Academy, Dartford Grammar School have all been used, and can be used. The school in Windsor is as far away from reality as are the members of Theresa May's cabinet (a subset). Why am I vociferous. If you are working on Holker Street secondary modern school, it would have a dfenumber 909/40??. The 909 would tell you it is funded and supported by Cumbria Council- though formerly the number was that of the Furness district of Lancashire. We don't have an article as it is long closed and that is the part of the story and the notability. The full dfenumber will tell you the schools history and will be quoted in printed sources from at least 1944 to 2000. It will be used in academic sociological studies. If we had the data before the merger we need to keep it. You would have to do some OR in Hansard to discover why they bothered to issue dfenos to private schools they didn't fund. Jonesey95 As a plain text identifier, linking to nothing? That would be fine as a holding arrangement, we don't link the headteachers name. My two points are keeping it for reasons of historical research, and not losing the data until Wikidata cuts in. But I am too busy to formulate an indepth response at the moment. ClemRutter (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    Come on ClemRutter, what examples? Who's "us"? This discussion here is specifically for |dfeno= (as you can see) and it is the only place where I have had a discussion with you. I have only given you one example (an example) which is Eton College and yes, this is an independent school. Would you like me to provide you with a state school example? Surely this is not necessary, but let me know. I provided you those links so you can see what the parameter was used for and how both pages are the same. If you must insist on adding a DfE number for that school, better to make use of a free label. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the dfeno page still worked, but you know, that page has gone. Just want to say that if you do struggle with change, I understand but it's important to remember that things are always changing. Here and again I'll mention, the Government has consolidated and simplified. I still stand with my reasonings above. Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    Before I start, can you look at the way this displays-Department for Education URN 141196 Tables. This puts a link to the DfE on every page and wastes acres of space. The link is fine- but not the length of the caption, the abbreviation is fine and saves 20 characters. The DfE refers to itself that way- for instance in the dfeno. But what is the URN, why isn't that linked? I have provided a URN stub (a correct name is needed) that could be used.
You ask why selecting the most atypical 'school' located in the UK is considered to be a wind up. Please go back and read the thread. I provided The Hundred of Hoo Academy, Nottingham Academy, Dartford Grammar School (no URN as yet) as suggestions for more typical schools. Earlier Dartford Grammar School was being used. If you look at my contributions you will see I am cleaning up Reading Girls' School, The Carlton Academy, The Bulwell Academy, ‎Southwell Minster School this is mostly to do with updating URNs. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools is looking to promote Carlton le Willows Academy to GA, so that is another example you could use. Free label is not appropriate as it needs to be rendered in a group next to the URN as can be seen in the government page. (note also the UKPRN that we don't yet have) I totally agree with you on the demise of the dfeno link page- and am sure most headteachers would agree too- and there are more changes on the way! ClemRutter (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

General discussion

  • Making a good Merge does not depend on the green ticks. It is the Red XN red crossed ones we must look at! IOW: useless post. Now could you reply to the other posts & thoughts written here? Tracking smartly? Or are you just trying to make this a personal attack? (Is not how I remember you from the TfD discussion). -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi DePiep, hope things are well :) - Ok, so I created the list from what was already shown at Infobox UK school but that was definitely incomplete. Was rushing at the time I was doing it, but I've worked on the list and added further information with a deprecated section and symbols to make things easier - should be complete now (if there's anything I've missed you can just add to the list, I'll check again too). Hang on a minute, at the time of reading what you were putting I must have looked at it a different way, because I thought it was part of your discussion with Martin haha - but what you've been writing and some of the stuff you've being doing such as getting the capitalised params removed and some edits on the tracking categories is really good and helpful. I was thinking once the merge is complete, a bot can be used to remove the deprecated params and changing the plural params to the ones already available such as motto_pl to mottoes although I'm curious to know how many articles would be using these _pl plural params, what you think? Please let me know, thank you (will reply more later after you've replied, currently 4:48am here and my eyes keep closing haha) Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Think I can do more after the sandbox code is in {{Infobox UK school}}. I think the crossed-ones should be edited out (from articles). -DePiep (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Not just deprecate:

  • motto_pl in articles should be replaced by mottoes (existing target parameter)
  • founder_pl in articles should be replaced by founders (existing target parameter)
  • specialist_pl in articles should be replaced by specialists (existing target parameter)

Lacking any other clarity on how to proceed (what to do with the pass-through Infobox UK schools now has? What is the next versioning step?), I propose for handling those as as described in #The_merge_process Example motto. -DePiep (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  • "Deprecate" is used confusingly. There are two forms:
"Deprecate" as in: remove and delete the parameter and its presentation, do not show any data (for example |approx=)
"Deprecate" as in: stop using this parameter name, rename into an other name and keep its effect (for example |motto_pl= into |mottoes=)

So better write "Delete" ☒N and "Rename" → instead. -DePiep (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  • re Steven (Editor). Some remarks. About |publication_pl/s=, |locality=: please decide a priori whether to keep or delete these in the target template (and how to present). Number of instances does not matter: once the set of parameters is clear, we'll make all changes needed (not decided by the numbers). I repeat that the current form of the UK infobox is temporal only for switchover days, ultimately it will be a plain redirect. -DePiep (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
By the way, parameter use (number of uses and values, including unknown parameters), will be reported at about Nov.. 5 in a TemplateData monthly error report (TDmer). See 'useful links' in top. {{Infobox school}} already has this TDmer (Oct 1). -DePiep (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi DePiep, replying to your message above and below: Yeah the _pl ones need to be replaced with the current format ones that are available - I also definitely don't want to use the _pl ones and this won't be consistent with current format which is better. Yeah I guess there could be a confusion for deprecate - I've changed it to your suggestion of delete and rename. We definitely don't need locality but what are your thoughts on getting a |publications= param for |publication_pl= to be renamed to or delete _pl one? I'm ok for either way. I was thinking that once Infobox UK school is redirected to Infobox school, the "to delete" ones above would populate the unsupported category and maybe the ones that need to be renamed (or they remain as an alias for the time being), and then a bot handles the job of the removing and renaming which would then depopulate the category? What you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
OK for the three _pl plurals (a regular delete & remove; now in sandbox). re |publication_pl= in UK schools: plural not in target at all, current UK usage unknown (Nov 5 will give the TDmer, see useful link). Per good coding practice, and as MSGJ noted, like: "when merging, don't change unrelated parameters" (propose those change elsewhere & later). So in this case: no objection to keep, i.e. add to target template (as renamed → |publications=. -DePiep (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
About populating the unsupported category: yes, all deleted params should populate that one. (I can write an WP:AWB routine that cleans up, max is 3k so is doable). But there is a better, cleaner route: 1. code UKschools so that it accepts both old and new parameter names |motto_pl, mottoes=. 2. Have the good ones whitelisted ("supported params") for this categorisation, then use Check for unknown parameters before making Redirect. 3. Empty the category! (note that the UK category only has UKschool articles, so no mixup with those ~700+ bad {{Infobox school}} parameters ;-) ) 4. Edit into to Redirect, no errors should appear (I described this earlier). This requires one important thing: the list of parameters in target {{Infobox school}} first must be complete & stable (no changes any more). And that is exactly what you are doing in this list, so good works. I myself am not that familiar with things like URN, so I cannot decide on how on decide on these. -DePiep (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Complete the Overview list
How do we know this list is complete & correct? Where did you get it from? Useless working an incomplete list. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Steven (Editor). Below is a list of missing parameters. These are used in code in the Old template {{Infobox UK school/sep2018version}} (pre-merge). That is, irrespective of the "Unknown params" checklist and of documentation. IOW: these parameters can and may be used in UKschool articles, having a visible effect and no error message.

If I am right, these must be added to your Overview list above, and have a triage on how to handle them in the target infobox (use regularly, rename, delete, discuss, ...).

Interesting groups: UK-specific, image2, more geo parameters. -DePiep (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Parameters used in UKschools, but missing in Overview list
bodystyle css
deputy_head deputy
deputy_head_label deputy
free_4 free
free_5 free
free_label_4 free
free_label_5 free
district geo
dcsfno ID code
dcsfurn ID code
alt image
caption image
image_upright image
image2 image2
alt2 image2
caption2 image2
image_upright2 image2
size2 image2
president leaders
council_area UK-spec/location
gaelic_name UK-spec
native_name UK-spec
native_name_lang UK-spec
scottishschoolsonline UK-spec
capacity
closed
colours
enrolment
established
founder
houses
local_authority
medium
motto
publication
religion


The 8seven pinpont parameters in the old template are: 

<s>pushpin_image</s>
<s>pushpin_label</s>
<s>pushpin_label_position</s>
<s>pushpin_map</s>
<s>pushpin_map_alt</s>
<s>pushpin_map_caption</s>
<s>pushpin_mapsize</s>

Hi DePiep, I've removed the pushpin parameters that you mentioned here as I've already mentioned "pushpin_map and its related parameters" in the list above. These 8 parameters were already there. They were actually replicated from Infobox school, see here and especially this one. Nice job on finding these parameters, looks like Infobox UK school is a mess, also because like you said "irrespective of the "Unknown params" checklist and of documentation". I don't think I've seen an Infobox UK school article using the district parameter (but already present here anyway which is used mainly by US schools). I don't think it really is a "UK" infobox as I've come across many Northern Ireland schools (see this school for example) and I think there were a few Scotland schools too that are already using Infobox school. The |scottishschoolsonline= and |council_area= seem to have come from Template:Infobox Scotland school which was merged/redirected in 2013. As the parameters were not shown in the documentation, I don't think these two parameters are being used/widely used (Council area is also not needed as Scotland schools use local authority. I've not seen Scottish schools online being used for any of the Scottish articles I've come across - but I can't seen to find the actual Scottish schools online page, looks like it may have been replaced by Parentzone?. The same goes for |gaelic_name= which strangely is not shown in Scotland infobox/never shown in UK documentation). I've added "< s > < / s >" to the parameters in your list to show they have been added to the list above. Regarding |dcsfno= and |dcsfurn= which I haven't added above yet, I'm not sure how many articles would be using these but I assume these are predecessor parameters for |dfeno= (needs to be deleted) and |urn= (needs to be renamed to)? - Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) is a preceding agency of the present Department for Education that was dissolved in 2010. Please let me know on your thoughts Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the 8 pushpin parameter names here (in the collapsed part). I want each and every parameter name to be checkable. As in: prove and check that they are covered well. DePiep (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Checked: only seven out of eight are covered. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi DePiep, I removed students as that wasn't in Infobox UK school was it? I'm sure it was just the enrolment parameter that it had, not students? If it did, shouldn't be a problem as Infobox school already has the parameter. I removed the duplicate pushpin_map and ticked the others as already present, but I'm a bit confused, are you sure it's 8 and not 7? Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
You're right, |students= is&was not in the old template. -DePiep (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
You're right, |pushpin_map= was double so the number is 7. Still, let's keep those 7 Overview listed explicitly to keep checks (not blanketed as it was before). -DePiep (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
mottoes, founders, specialists (plurals)

I've discovered a mistake re ... [see code for long text] ... ready for the next update. -DePiep (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Rewritten, simpler & no error alarm needed:

Currently, these three params have an undesired plural used in target template {{Infobox school}}. The code uses the forms |motto_pl, specialist_pl, founder_pl=. The documentation says: the plurals are |mottoes, founders, specialists=, next to their singulars. When plural is used the label also shows in plural. (Incidentally, these 3 plurals are not used in Infobox school articles). These appear to be old synonyms, deprecated some time ago (see [6]). WRT the merge process: {{Infobox UK school}} now also correctly that the word to use is |mottoes= etc.; usage not yet known.

I propose to remove the _pl-forms from the target template, and only use parameter names |mottoes, founders, specialists=. I definitely do not want to use the _pl-forms in this template. I have coded this ins {{Infobox school/sandbox}} ([7] diff), ready for the next update. -DePiep (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I have modified the Infobox UK school template to simply pass along any instances of |founders=, |mottoes=, and |specialists=. The Infobox school template handles parameters these gracefully. I will convert all articles using these parameters and then remove the "_pl" forms from the whitelist. As with the | • deputy • = parameters, there is sometimes information in these parameters that needs to be handled manually, so a bot is not appropriate for this conversion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
approx, c_approx (deprecated, unused)

In target {{Infobox school}}: |approx, c_approx= are deprecatred ☒N and to be removed completely. In this template, they are unused. (in UK schools: will be checked later). WRT merge process UK schools: temporally passed-through all right; parameters to be renamed in articles.

I have coded this in {{Infobox school/sandbox}} [8] diff). -DePiep (talk) 07:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that when |approx= is used in Infobox UK school, it should sometimes be replaced with |established= (possibly with "c.") or |enrollment=. Check the context and the value used for the parameter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Deprecation of |approx= is clear and undisputed. Even in the old Infobox usage, "illegal" (out of documentation). We do not have to take care of this. However, TDmer says this |appox= is used 68 times!, so when removing this parameter from the target template whitelist (we still will), the error cat will list those up for smart edits. -DePiep (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is deprecated, but my note was to say that in going through the unsupported parameters category, editors should be aware that the value of "approx" (if it shows a year) might need to be moved to |established=, with "c." added in front of the value. We should preserve the original editor's intent as much as possible. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 Done. I have removed all values in the |approx= parameter. It definitely needed human intervention, as editors had used it for four or five different meanings and had stored valuable information in the parameter value. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Merge-introduced error

Steven (Editor)MSGJ - Looks like an early merge step introduced an error into articles. |image2= is a valid parameter in the old {{Infobox UK school}} (see sep2018version). But today's {{Infobox UK school}} does not show in articles this image any more! More parameters may be like this. -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

|image2= works at Template:Infobox UK school/testcases. See the bottom of "Dartford Grammar School" (on the left, using the live template). Please provide a link to an article where it is not working. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Compliments! (no joke). Great research & report. Who could have thought that a parameter name |picture= stil would exist for an image. (Maybe I will write about merging this later on). -DePiep (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Replied to you regarding this in the above list Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Also see above re my further correction of this and other image parameters, which were incorrectly mapped last week. The point, of course, is not just to display the images, but to display them according to the template's design and documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
TDmer lists

UKschools now has a TDmer (TemplateData monthly error report). Bottom of that page has a link to Invalid parameter names (934 articles!). Invalids is wrt TemplateData parameter names in UKschools. I have intentionally made that TD-list a copy of target {{Infobox school}}, so the errors are "When Infobox school would be used" (nothing to do with old Infobox UK school). Apart from the changes (renames, deletes) already discussed, these bad parameter names should be cleaned up. -DePiep (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Use care when working from this list. Some valid parameters, such as |alt2=, are marked as "N" (not supported), and some parameters still under discussion, such as |dfeno=, are also marked as "N". Check the "Preview" error messages before removing or changing parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
specialist= parameter?

I am confused about the |specialist= parameter in {{Infobox UK school}}, which was discussed in 2010 and apparently kept, but then removed in 2014. It is supported by {{Infobox school}}. The parameter definition there is confusing to me. In US English, "specialist" means "a person who specializes in something", but the usage in this template appears to conform with the US English definition of the word "specialty" or the phrase "special focus", meaning something that is emphasized.

I have been unable to find any discussion of this parameter in the archives of Template talk:Infobox school.

I propose that we add it to the unknown parameter check for Infobox UK school in order to prevent people from removing it while we discuss its use. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up: Since Infobox school supports |specialist=, there appears to be no harm in having it present in articles, so I have added it to the unknown parameter check as a valid parameter. Make a note here if you have any further information about this somewhat confusing parameter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Jonesey95 Good catch!!! If it has a different meaning between UK and general school infobox, we must keep it separate! Even better: today we can (but not after-merge when {{Infobox school}} is a redirect). So, please propose handling. If difference is to be kept, we must adjust target {{Infobox school}}. What do you propose? (at least, different param name in the target, also diff presentation in the target. One more data row). (Actually, THIS is why we do Talk-to-Merge)-DePiep (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The documentation for Infobox school says that |specialist= is to be used for "Specialist of the school." That doesn't clarify the purpose of the parameter, but I think it is safe to simply leave |specialist= alone in instances of Infobox UK school and let them migrate over to Infobox school. This can go on the post-merge list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Should the "tracking" module display a red error message when questionable parameters are blank?

Currently, the "tracking" module invoked by this template displays a red error message when a handful of parameters are used, such as |approx=. After seeing one of these error messages about a blank, unused parameter, I changed the module to check if the parameter was actually being used, on the principle that editors should not receive an error message unless something is actually wrong with the infobox. I was reverted by DePiep without explanation, so now we discuss. DePiep, please explain why editors should see a red error message when there is no apparent problem with the infobox. Thank you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Show them: Yes in the Merge period (that is: when agreed on the final OK parmater names). But: use this category populating only related to the Merge process. We have Target Template parameters, and their needs. -DePiep (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
When I will do the WP:AWB cleanup of the category (using REGEX), I want to remove them blank bad ones yes. When doing this bot excercise, it is important that a bot visits an article only once (For me that is: there may be 3500 articles in the cat / I will clean them out. But hey, only once!). -DePiep (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Parameters to remove and rename (instructions for a bot)

Primefac started replacing this template prior to the discussion we need to have about what parameters a bot should replace and rename. Also, I don't know if Steven (Editor) was done with the image parameter replacement yet. Let's have that discussion here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jonesey95, I've completed the |image2= approach I mentioned above and have moved to delete section. I removed the parameter list that you added before. I think it's best if we make use of the rename and delete sections above. However, I think we should wait until the parameters under discuss section are complete and moved to appropriate sub section above, and then we can confirm at the end whether the rename and delete list is correct. We can also add more if need to, or maybe the extra ones are best left to after-merge discussion? What you think? We can carry on the parameter discussion as I can see Primefac has reverted the bot edits, and the categories are empty again. Please let me know, thanks Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I created a new summary section to guide the bot because the discussions above are very long and confusing and have discussions about the same parameter in multiple places. If I were writing a script to replace this template and I hadn't been involved in the discussion, I would throw up my hands. Please restore the summary section I created, including the subsection about the draft space. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Restored, still the same, just the headings have been adapted so the sections all fit with the layout of the entire merging section, hope that's ok. The list does need updating, I'll be online later, really late here and I'm tired haha Steven (Editor) (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC) (see comment below)
Parameters to remove
  • |dcsfno=
  • |old_urn= and |old urn=
  • |dcsfurn=
  • |deputy_head_label=
  • |deputy_head= and |deputy head=
  • |r_deputy_head_label=
  • |r_deputy_head=
  • |approx=
  • |c_approx=
  • |native_name_lang=
  • |motto_pl=
  • |founder_pl=
  • |specialist_pl=
  • |publication_pl=
  • |website_name=
  • |bodystyle=
  • |image_upright=
  • |image2=
  • |alt2=
  • |caption2=
  • |image_upright2=
  • |size2=
  • |scottishschoolsonline=
  • |gaelic_name=
  • |council_area=
  • |dms=
  • |fax=
  • |latitude=
  • |longitude=
  • |phone=
  • |sex=
Parameters to rename
  • |street= to |address=
  • |religion= to |religious_affiliation=
  • |size= to |image_size=
  • |LEA= to |local_authority=
  • |locality= to |location=
  • |enrollment= to |enrolment= (note change from two "l" characters to one)
  • |website= - only if website is populated: change to {{URL|1={{{website}}} }}. Otherwise, leave alone.

Please correct any of the above if it is incorrect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I have tidied and updated the list Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jonesey95 and Steven (Editor): it's late and I'm a bit tired, but it looks like the above discussions have somewhat finished. Would that be a correct assessment, and is the merger/rename/etc ready to go? Primefac (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
It has and this list is correct and in line with the parameter discussions above (waiting for Jonesey95 to also confirm). Seem to be stuck in a limbo with |dfeno= which is what's holding this merge and from what I can see in the discussion above, it's pretty much 2 (delete) to 1 (oppose). Jonesey95, thoughts? Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Sigh. There is no consensus, so in order to get past this limbo, let's cut the baby. Ignore |dfeno= in the migration (just leave it alone if it is present). Do not display |dfeno= in Infobox school (no change needed in the template rendering). Add |dfeno= to the list of supported parameters in the parameter check, with a comment pointing to this talk discussion, so that it is not flagged as an error (minor change at the foot of Infobox school). Postpone the discussion about activating the parameter until another day. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea, but before Primefac goes ahead on the bot run, is there a way we can get more people to join the discussion on the parameter above? Maybe an RfC? Actually, maybe I could ask some of the editors who contributed in the TfD if they could come and provide their thoughts on the parameter to establish consensus? What you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Let's have a thorough discussion after the migration, as part of the post-merge changes. We have many parameters to discuss, and this can be one of them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good, Primefac ready to go, only |dfeno= is being ignored in the list above for discussion to continue after-merge. Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Primefac, this is the final list. All parameters (and their values, if present) in the "remove" list should be removed from Infobox UK school. All parameters on the "rename" list should have their parameter names changed as indicated; the parameter values should remain untouched. All other parameters and their values should be left alone. All Infobox UK school templates should be renamed to Infobox school. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I have removed |dfeno= from the "remove" list above to avoid any possible confusion about what should be done with it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine and I removed the "parameters to leave alone" that you added, as Primefac knows to only go through what's presented in the list above (as the case with previous bot runs where I just listed the parameters to remove and rename, hope this is ok) Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
What should the bot do outside of article space?

What should the bot do outside of article space? I have not done any parameter checking or migration outside of article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Enough of these Jonesey95 edits

Today, Jonesey95 has edited the infobox templates without taking part in the discussion and without even considering arguments. I asked for reversion, but hey. So. Since Jonesey95 thinks they can go their own way, I am leaving this Merge process. I feel sorry for co-editor Steven (Editor), who does know about cooperating. Bye. (ping me if you want to contact me; page unfollowed). @MSGJ: -DePiep (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

"Bye"? How is that "taking part in the discussion"? It is false to say that I have not participated in the discussion. See my detailed notes above.
The major changes to the Infobox UK school template should have been discussed in detail before they were made, as I explained above. The changes that were made broke many features of the template, including very basic things like rendering of the address and placement of images. I was away on a wikibreak, else I would have objected and asked for a reversion of the breakage. Instead of reverting the changes, I am allowing the discussions to proceed while cleaning up the worst mistakes, such as the incorrect mapping of images, the removal of supported and documented parameters, and the removal of the unknown parameter check. As you can see above, I have clearly laid out the reasons for the changes I am making (I have also explained each edit with an edit summary), and I am participating fully in the parts of this discussion that are clear and understandable. I have not made edits that involve portions of the discussion on this page that are murky or confusing to me.
I have also fixed over 200 instances of unsupported infobox parameters, which is work that will need to be done in order for this merge to proceed. The removal of parameter error checking from the Infobox UK school template prevented easy, timely tracking of progress toward ensuring that all parameters used in the template within article space were supported and correct.
If you see anything that is technically incorrect with any of the changes that I have made to Infobox UK school, please let me know here. I'll be happy to fix any mistakes that I have made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
BTW, for those not following my edits to the template, here is a complete diff thus far. I fixed image mapping from Infobox UK school to the Infobox school template, fixed the address rendering, and added back unknown parameter tracking, updating it to allow all parameters supported by Infobox school. That's it. All of the features that I fixed were working fine before the template was modified last week. They were broken by edits last week, and I have fixed them. I do not see anything controversial in my edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah no way, DePiep, please stay, your collaboration has been excellent. Jonesey95, I'm not too sure about your edits, the changes you did should have been mentioned here where we can then comment on rather than doing those changes straight away. As you can see, we've been discussing the merge here addressing the different parameter issues and so on - if you have a look at the overview list above, you can see which parameters are already present, to be renamed, to be deleted, discuss etc. This is all to make sure the merge will be a success and work towards the ultimate aim of redirecting Infobox UK school to Infobox school. We're also looking to make use of a bot that will help in the removal and renaming. Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Also |image2= for example, was displayed at the bottom of the infobox, now it's displaying beneath the logo. This is not where it should be, the image parameter used in Infobox UK school which is used predominantly for the logo is displayed at the top (also already present), with |image2= being a secondary image that was displayed at bottom, which is why we said in the overview list about getting this renamed to |picture= which is also displayed at the bottom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks for responding. I also agree that DePiep should stay. As an olive branch, I have provided some detailed notes in the long section above about specific parameters. And just one more time, the changes I made to Infobox UK school were only to fix things that were clearly broken by last week's edits. I saw no reason to discuss and wait around for something before fixing something that was clearly broken, causing articles to display infoboxes incorrectly. I chose instead to fix the broken things right away and post the reasoning here.
I have no plans to make edits to the template that introduce new functionality compared to the September 2018 version. (I do note that some working parameters from that September 2018 version, such as |scottishschoolsonline=, are no longer working. Breaking the template on purpose, prior to discussion, would not have been my preferred course of action, but I'm willing to let it ride for a bit as long as we are all working on the merge.)
As for |image2=, please see Template:Infobox UK school/testcases, where the live Infobox UK school is compared with the sandbox, which currently contains the Sep 2018 version of the infobox. You should see (in the Dartford Grammar School section) that image2 displays directly below the logo. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

A possible resolution while we discuss

I might be willing to revert to the version of the Infobox UK school template that existed from 13 March 2018‎ to 28 October 2018, but I would need to think through the ramifications of that change. Substantive comments are welcome. Would there be unintended consequences to the display of the template in articles?

I can think of one problem: parameters like |principal= (and many others) that are supported in Infobox school are sometimes used in Infobox UK school. Those parameters should be kept, since they will display properly after the merge. The current whitelist includes all parameters supported by both templates, so |principal= does not generate an error message. If we revert to the March–October version of the template, we should add the full list of supported Infobox school parameters to the whitelist in order to prevent those parameters from being removed by well-meaning editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"I might be willing" as a gift? are you God? You are supposed to revert at my first request, when I also pointed out you were breaking the merge process, you were ignoring the discussion, and you were introducing an invitation wrong errors (that invitation you yourself picked up). The right track is this: 1. Remove the whitelist completely from {{Infobox UK school}}, 2. Join the merge discussion constructively & cooperatively to get the right parameter list. Note that I already warned you that edits were controversial i.e. unacceptable, so know you are trespassing. -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_school/Archive_5&oldid=1167088142"